28 Responses to “Does DNA terror column amount to ‘incitement’?”

Subramanian Swamy was the Law minister of India in 1991. Salman Khurshid is in 2011. The former exposed the biggest scam in independent history, with help from journalists like Gopi Krishnan of The Pioneer. The latter fought in Supreme Court FOR deadly terror groups like SIMI.

The reason I am giving that comparison is that we have far more dangerous elements, I mean pro-terrorist elements, at very senior positions of UPA government today. People should be focusing on such blatant conflict of interests, rather than pick on Swamy.

By the way, I went over pages and pages of comments from different websites. Hardly anyone factually rebutting Swamy.

Some examples:
a) Article 370 has been the main reason Jammu & Kashmir is not integrated with India like lets say Mysore princely state. That article was a pampering from Nehru’s long list of blunders. What’s wrong in asking it to be removed? Millions of nationalists will support such a move.

b) Liberal democracies like UK or USA do NOT allow a Muslim man to marry four wives today. Why is India allowing it, if it is truly secular? Swamy’s call to end such votebank politics is a very rational appeal, not hate mongering at all.

c) Extremely immigrant friendly country like USA does not allow a foreign born, naturalized citizen to become the President. What’s wrong in Swamy asking for a similar constitution in India which disallows a foreign born taking the top seat? Absolutely nothing hateful there.

d) What’s wrong in Swamy calling Indian government to claim back Pakistan Occupied Kashmir? After all its a question of India’s sovereignty! Some people are like…oooo.. Pak is a nuke power. But friends, even India was a nuke power on 26/11, but that didn’t deter Pakis to send mass murderers to Mumbai. Again, Swamy’s detractors have no solution, just resort to silly name calling.

I can give a lot more examples. If find it funny that some resort to ‘terrorists have no religion’, but when folks like Swamy hard hit terrorism bleeding India, like Mumbai 26/11 or 13/7, they immediately take sides to blame on ‘communal’ mindset. LOL!

With People like you India is doomed.
1)Kashmir was handed over to India on the condition of maitaining it’s sovereignty. Consecutive governments have already betrayed Kashmiris by not allowing it to be autonomous state and choosing their own fate. Your idea of Kashmir does not involve Kashmiris.
2)Indian brand of secularism allows everyone to follow his own religion in it’s own way. That’s why you have different marriage laws in line with different religions. There are Hindus who have multiple wives like former TN CM Karunanidhi (3 wives all alive, none divorced). Had you been in Pakistan, you too are very likely to have fought for marriage laws or other laws that suit your religion etc.
3)US law also allows women to become President. How many Women presidents did US have? It’s just the matter of mentality.
4)Attacking another country is not as simple as you say especially when PoK has officially been recognized by UN. China is always on standby for Pakistan and US still pampers Pakistan for it’s Geo-Strategic and political position. It was US which supplied weapons to Pak during all the wars against India. Attacking Pak will only bring chaos to India.

Naved, you are only showing your ignorance when you say “Kashmir was handed over to India on the condition of maintaining its sovereignty”. can you enlighten me who set the condition? Because history says neither the Maharaja nor the cunning sheikh Abdullah ever demanded autonomous status for Kashmir at the time of accession of the state to India. It was Nehru a bootlicker of white people asked for a plebiscite in Kashmir at the insistence of Mountbatten. It was Nehru again who inserted article 370 in the constitution to provide special status to Kashmir out of chauvinistic considerations as he was of Kashmir origin.Not only Karunanidhi there are many Hindus who have more than one wives. But if any one of them had filed a case of bigamy against KN then he might have been behind bars. The reason why Muslims want four wives or even more because they want to be outnumbered the hindu population.For then they will be able to carry out their unfinished agenda of turning Hindustan to a Darul Islam.

This question is the one which is inciting evryone to revolt against Dr. S.Swamy. One of those pseudo-‘sickular’ stuff.If Diggy Raja can get away with his inciting remarks against RSS why not those minority of the people opposing this understand that in Bharat they are expected to conform and comply with the tradition?

I do not at all see anything rational in Kafila / Shivam Vij’s call to protesting against DNA, which is simply the medium which carried the views they oppose.

Get to the message, not the medium !

If Shivam Vij (or anyone exhorted by him) would express a counter view and refute Swamy’s article point by point, that would be far more in the progressive spirit than calling for banning the book, so to say.

It would be even better if, for example, they could prove that “Islamism” can be a unifying factor which helps the community of India to “bond”.

I say, why not make an attempt ?

I request Aditya Sinha of DNA, if he is reading this, to encourage Shivam Vij to write a rejoinder and offer to publish it. (Or, have a thousand people write a rejoinder, if that could somehow be pulled off).

I do not at all see anything rational in Kafila / Shivam Vij’s call to protesting against DNA, which is simply the medium which carried the views they oppose.

While all of us do have the right to expression, you must be aware that there are both legal and moral constraints to it.

For example, based on your morality, you might refrain (or not) in calling an idiot and idiot to his / her face. Its a restraint on expressing something that you apply because of your personal beliefs on what is right and wrong.

An example of legal constraint would be a law against abusing / deriding someone of a lower caste. Do you have the right to express your disdain for someone? Ofcourse.

But the law sometimes places restraints on this.

Why? And should such legal constraints be there in a democracy?

Thoughts and words, as such don’t hold much value. But when men and women start acting because of these thoughts, and the words that express them, then they suddenly acquire power.

Naturally, some rulers / politician exploit this to their own advantage. The Nazis are a good example. In our own country, the abuse against dalits and SC / ST is another.

A legal restraint, in a peaceful environment, against expressing ideas that promote hatred and enmity against a group thus does indeed help the government to contain and reduce the violence that may result from it.

That said, lets come back to your concern that we shouldn’t be criticizing the medium.

Why not? When there are moral and legal obligations on every citizen on expressing their views, is it wrong to criticize the poor judgment of the ‘medium’ in appearing to promote an idea that has a history of violence associated with it?

He says: The terrorist blast in Mumbai on July 13, 2011, requires decisive soul-searching by the Hindus of India.

His opening statement is itself quite revealing. He implies that India is only for Hindus / only a Hindu is Indian. And in a really clever way, he makes this a Hindu – Muslim issue.

On India being only for Hindus or defining our national identities based on a religion – well, I wish him and the Sangh parivar all the best to make it so! The fact that the Hindu majority in India have never given a majority vote to any of the Sangh parivar’s party, or that Muslims and Christians and Sikhs have no problem in voting for a Hindu politican speaks volumes about how squarely the indians have rejected (and continue to reject) this notion.

On this being a ‘simple’ Hindu-Muslim issue –
Well, ofcourse, if we think like a religious fanatic, it will appear as a ‘hindu-muslim’ issue only.

He says: Islamic terrorism is India’s number one problem of national security.

Actually, if you observe the history of jihadi terrorism in India, you will find that it is mostly foreign oriented. And these foreign organizations often find it very difficult to get local recruits, especially during peaceful times.

It is only when there are communal riots that these organizations find it easy to get local recruits.

Thus, they often try to provoke these communal riots.

Most politicans understands this, and thus make effort to maintain communal harmony, when any terror attack happens.

What does the sangh parivar / BJP do? Every time there is a terrorist attack or some religious dispute, they try to create communal discord. They do this for 2 reasons:

-> Even the Sangh parivar needs recruits!
-> It is easier to demonize muslims in India, and get more support, if the terrorists are indian muslims.

Since independence, it is the Sangh that has remained India’s greatest enemy. Consider any pre and post independence religious riots in India, and you will find that the Sangh (in its many avatars) had a minor or major role in it. Like any other religious fundamentalist organization, it has been banned many times.

He says: “All other countries conquered by Islam 100% converted to Islam within two decades of the Islamic invasion. Undivided India in 1947 was 75% Hindu even after 800 years of brutal Islamic rule.”

Like most fanatics, he doesn’t get his facts straight and chooses to believe what he wants to. (The article “Spread of Islam” in Wikipedia is good read for those interested.)

He says: “I blame Hindus who have taken their individuality permitted in Sanatan Dharma to the extreme.”

A trademark of all fanatics – He perverts something of his religion, and instead of questioning his own beliefs, he KNOWS that he right and everyone else is wrong.

He says: ” If half the Hindus voted together, rising above caste and language, a genuine Hindu party would have a two-thirds majority in Parliament and the assemblies.”

Well, they do vote together. And the fact that they don’t all want to vote for JP or BJP or any other religion oriented party should speak volumes!

He says: ” If one Hindu dies merely because he or she was a Hindu, then a bit of every Hindu also dies. This is an essential mental attitude, a necessary part of a virat (committed) Hindu. We need a collective mindset …”

In islam, there is a concept called brotherhood that jihadi organizations pervert for their cause.

Muhammed (PBUH) said, “… you won’t become a total believer unless you love each other.”

Thus, in islam, faith and community are inseparable. All acts of worship that are declared pillars of Islam have a collective form. The five daily prayers are best performed in congregation … The special Friday prayer cannot be offered individually at all. Zakat is obviously aimed at making the rich of the community take care of the needs of its poor. Fasting, an essentially individual act, has been given a collective form through unity in time. Hajj enforces unity in both time and place, bringing the believers together in the plains of Arafat in their remembrance of Allah.

Jihadi organization pervert this concept to brainwash their followers that any attack on any muslim is an attack on Islam. It’s frightening to see that Hindu fanatics are learning from their muslim fanatics peer and the Sangh followers and shakas are propagating this in their idea called ‘Hindutva’.

He says: “If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj (greater Hindu society) which is Hindustan.”

Wonder who gave him the right to ‘accept’ someone into a society or a religion? Doesn’t that speak volume about the arrogance of the philosophy that he is preaching?

He says: “It is also a ridiculous idea that terrorists cannot be deterred because they are irrational and willing to die. “

I’ll believe this if he gives up his fanatic beliefs and starts practicing Hinduism. :)

I won’t go into the 5 ideas he puts forth, in the end, to tackle terrorism as the combination of stupidity and his callousness must be quite obvious.

***

Yes, well said. He does have every right to express them. And we should defend his right to express it, or someone else in the future will decide you shouldn’t express your point of view.

And look at the bright side: His pseudo-secular mask has slipped off and everyone will now know him for what he actually is.

I can see so many of my friends in the mask of Secularism trying to gain microscopic Majority or planning to serve a legal Notice to Dr Subramanian Swamy. I wish they could spend more time knowing Hinduism rather than expressing their ignorant views.

Did any of these friends of mine or So called secular tried to file a case against M.F Hussain for his Insane painting inciting hate and insulting Hindu Gods?

And also the least pseudo secular should do is advice what Dr Swamy has to do and what not to.

Where were the opinions of all these secularists till now; when Diggy Raja was vehemently spewing poison from last many months & even after the Mumbai blasts? So if someone raises similar rhetoric against the so-called peaceful community it is communal & divisive, but vice-versa (as Diggy did) then the world is absolutely hunky-dory. Why such a hypocrisy?

What is written by Kiran KS is not wrong, Swamy is right and 100% correct when he says Pakistan targets India because it is a Hindu majority or atleast a non muslim majority country. There is NOTHING WRONG about what Subramanian Swamy said. stop putting words in Swamy’s mouth, he never said there is not place for non hindus in India, do not lie you!

Your dear chamcha or sorry! chacha nehru was a shameless and spineless person that is why he begged the RSS to HELP IN 1962 WAR AGAINST CHINA AND SAVE HIS FACE!!

Mr Compare muslim majority regions to non muslim majority regions, know that India is secular and tolerant mostly because of the resident non muslim population because we are a non muslim majority in our case we are a hindu majority.

SOme saudi cleric when visited to India was told by some Indian mulla that India is secular because it is a hindu majority country. This was only a couple of years ago, THAT IS A FACT!

Pakistan targets India because it is a Hindu majority or atleast a non muslim majority country.

Ok. And do you realize that when you too think like a Pakistani, and see things only through the prism of religion, they win?

… stop putting words in Swamy’s mouth, he never said there is not place for non hindus in India …

Yes, we all know of the “kind heartedness” of the grand RSS plan in allowing non-hindu’s to stay in India.

As swamy says: “If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him … Others, who refuse to acknowledge this … can remain in India but should not have voting rights … declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus. “

Summary: Non-hindus can stay in India as second-class citizens, unless they ‘convert’ to ‘Hindutva’.

… nehru was a shameless and spineless person that is why he begged the RSS to HELP IN 1962 WAR AGAINST CHINA AND SAVE HIS FACE!!

Ok, I’ll bite – please do tell us more on this (don’t leave out any details!).

Mr Compare muslim majority regions to non muslim majority regions …

See, that’s a major error in your thought process – thinking that all muslims (or all Hindus or Christians etc.) the world over are the same. Why would you think that?

What is more worrisome is how such an article has gone on into a mainstream newspaper with such an ease. Swamy is not saying something new. But earlier such stuff remained in the confines of papers like ‘Panchjanya’ and ‘Organiser’, to name the biggest of them all. But that was meant for only those who were already initiated. Now by allowing this, DNA has surely transgressed the boundaries of responsible journalism. I only hope this does not indicate the shape of things to come as it seems going by the way media is going.

I hope we have more writers and intellectuals like Dr. Swamy who can do some plain talking and call spade a spade. He did not say anything wrong…at best, the article was badly written or without much editing I would say.

Where were all these “secular” voices when M. F. Hussain desecrated Hindu gods and goddesses? The champions of freedom of speech and expression who were vociferous in support of Hussain seem to be strangely tongue-tied when it comes to defending Dr. Swamy.

Where were all these “secular” voices when Digvijay Singh spewed his venom on Hindu organisations? [For the information of many who are misled by his name, Digvijay Singh is a Christian if we are to go by the Wikipedia entry on him.]

There was not a whimper of protest in either case.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy was right on many things he said in his article: the origin, burgeoning and growth of jehadi terrorism, its pathological hatred for Hindus and Jews.The only controversial point that Dr. Subramanian Swamy made was calling on Christians and Muslims to acknowledge their Hindu ancestry. This could perhaps been avoided but even this would appear mild compared to the venom that is spewed in the Urdu press or what is taught in the Madarasas.

wonderful article. this article, as usual is full of facts. Kudos to Dr. Swamy. we have suffered from such bogus secularism for last 64 years, we need emancipation from this now. to say such truth needs lots of guts, and Dr. swamy has shown it with the heart of lion. all bhartiyas should support him. and as far as showing legal notice to Dr. Swamy and DNA is concerned, do it, who is stopping you, but don’t get nervous if you all get exposed while doing such nonsense.
lastly, we need more such hard-hitting and facts-presenting articles from Dr. Swamy and DNA should feel proud for publishing them in their paper.

Fanatics let loose….India is a land of under educated morons speaking for GOD/RELIGION about which not a gram of truth is known yet. On the way to doom.The collective wisdom of the ‘great’ civilization is there for everyone to see.Scams, corruption,atrocities, denial of justice,Land mafia,Vulgarity,hatred…..all in spite of thousands of gods and godmen.Funny land…Funny people.

As I have always maintained, there is no difference between a Sangh terrorist or a Jihadi terrorist. Both try to disturb the communal harmony to recruit and brainwash members and derive political mileage.

Here’s a recent example: The “party with a difference” and the “noble soul saviours of Hindutva” were recently caught with their pants down –

“… members of the district unit of Sri Ram Sene have said the accused do not belong to their outfit but are members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) …

Well-placed police sources, however, told The Hindu that the entire incident was carried out at the behest of an elected representative of the BJP, whose political agenda was to foment communal disturbances in the district. The sources added that the elected representative had instructed his supporters to destroy all evidence of his involvement, including photographs of the protesters and the banners of the organisation.”

When you write, “As I have always maintained, there is no difference between a Sangh terrorist or a Jihadi terrorist” you seem to be aware of neither Quran/Hadith nor Hindu dharma! But I wonder if learning matters to you, because, after all, you seem to be proud to “always maintain” your position — even a factually ignorant one.

The incident mentioned in ‘The Hindu’, just affirms what I had previously stated – the Sangh Parivar and its related organization are religious fundamentalists who claim to derive the authority to practice hate and violence through Hindutva (not Hinduism). They follow the same pattern of political violence and exclusion that all religious fundamentalist (whether they be Jihadi, Khalistani, Nazi or Haredi / Zionist) do.

If you can be clearer on what you have an issue with, we can take the conversation forward ….

1. are you equating hindutva with a “religion” and if yes what’s your evidence? (“religion” represents a western notion etymologically traced to abrahamic mandates and alien to all indian dharma); and

2. hindutva, a geographical operationalization of hindu dharma (which celebrates numerous and multiple paths), embraces all that claim bharatvarsh to be their physical or spiritual home (savarkar, 1923).

my issue with you, as i have stated before, is that unlike hindu dharma (and hindutva,) the koran creates a fundamental dichotomy between “believers” and “kafirs,” AND mandates death on the latter. in other words, a mandate for killing exists in the islamic tradition, while it does not in hindu dharma/hindutva.

that’s the difference between a sangh terrorist — a cruel, misguided lumpen — and a jihadi terrorist — who has a religious mandate to kill. it’s like the difference between a hunter, who kills out of personal cruelty, and a tiger, which which kills by its svabhava. it’s silly to equate the two.

so that was my issue with your comment. every respect to you, good sir. :)

* You don’t accept that ‘hindutva‘ is the perverted, fundamentalist form of Hinduism.

I assume you are old enough to have realized that it is foolish to judge someone only by what they say. You judge people by their actions, because it is a truer reflection of them, rather than what they say.

Similarly, one can SAY this or that is hindutva, but they will be judged only by their actions.

Hinduism has survived millenia because of its emphasis on patience, tolerance and acceptance. Hindutva believers look on this as “weakness” of the “Hindu character” and ask for “pride” (another thing which Hinduism admonishes against!).

“Man is made up of three qualities – brutal, human, and Godly. That which tends to increase the divinity in you is virtue, and that which tends to increase brutality in you is vice. You must kill the brutal nature and become human, that is, loving and charitable. You must transcend that too and become pure bliss … ~ Swami Vivekananda

Funny how Hindutva believers practice the EXACT opposite of what Swami Vivekananda saying. Do you truly believe that a hindutva believer, who lives with constant contempt and hatred for ‘others’, and sometimes indulges in violence due to these beliefs will ever be able to attain Moksha?

* You believe Islam teaches that non-believers should be killed, and so “it is in their nature” that they will all become ‘terrorist’.

Perhaps you have come across this in some Jihadi literature. I often find that religious fundamentalist use each others literature to spread misconceptions. A brilliant tactic if you think about it – fundamentalism has already perverted their religious beliefs. So why not use that to portray the other religion even more negatively!

The truth is simpler – no muslim believes that non-muslims should be killed. This is accepted by ALL muslim believers except (like I have mentioned many times) the fringe, fundamentalist, Jihadi groups.

In fact, if you made the effort to actually understand Islam, you would be amazed at how much like Hinduism it is in its very basic form. (Ofcourse, one has to really understand Hinduism first!)

Two examples:

* Yoga and meditation are prescribed in Hinduism to prepare the mind and body, to make them more aware and perceptive to the ‘truth’. Islam prescribes the same as the daily ritual of 5 times of Namaz.

* Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), attained the knowledge of the Quran through intense meditation he used to practice alone – just like all true gurus of Hinduism.

Hinduism and Islam have survived peacefully together in India, for 1000s of years, because it shares similar values.

dear sir: i am not judging by what anyone does or says. i am quoting hindutva as defined by v.d. savarkar.

by your attitude, one would judge marx by pol pot. your attitude, i’m sorry to say, suggests a lack of education; even a lack of respect for education. it suggests an over-emphasis on experience (over erudition).

you offer no evidence/citations/quotations/attributions to support any of your, if i may say so, silly or presumptuous opinions.

i have no time, nor do i wish, to argue with your opinions, which are like noses: everyone has one.

your opinions, like mine, are worthless. i truly wish you’d read more and “feel” less, but rest assured, i respect your age (even though you seem to question mine!)

ps: try to suggest to a wahhabi that namaz is a form of yoga (and report his/her response if you’re lucky enough to still have your head on your body). also try to document that muhammad practiced mediation — it may be true, but i am eager to see some evidence. all the best to you, dear sir!